Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>Buying a farm is not an option for me,
>>
>>I know, you slacker.
>
> How does that make me a slacker?
It's the other way around. Your being a slacker has prevented you from
owning land.
> Just because
> I'm going to have to wait until retirement doesn't
> make me a slacker, just lucky or unlucky depending
> on how you look at it. Lucky for getting there
> someday, unlucky for it taking years.
Luck has NOTHING to do with it.
> Slacking has nothing to do with it.
It has everything to do with it.
>>>You say "widely available
>>>products...those include certain kinds of meat" What
>>>non-meat products do you refer to that lower cds?
>>
>>Locally grown produce and grains. Grow your own -- check out some of
>>those community garden links I gave you a few weeks ago.
>
> How are locally grown plants lower in cds than plants from
> elsewhere?
Less transportation and storage, less pesticide.
>>>Brand names please so we can all do the best we can.
>>
>>Clueless ****ing urbanite. That's your problem -- you prate about
>>"veganic" produce and then want brand names. Your affinity for
>>branding is what causes you to kill more animals with your consumption. Look
>>for local foods, refuse to buy anything grown more than 200 miles away
>>from your front door.
>
> And how does one tell them apart from others?
The label might say where the company is located, or where its canning
facilities are located. Yves, as I've already told you, is in Vancouver.
You're in Toronto. How many miles apart?
Another thing you can do is ask your local food co-ops about which of
their vendors are local.
> The stores don't put the name of the farmers and
> locations for most foods.
What a dope.
>>>By the way, it's just ridiculous to suggest to a
>>>vegatarian or vegan that they eat meat.
>>
>>I didn't recommend you do that, Skunky. I suggested you recommend
>>those who eat meat to eat those kinds.
>
> I'll never recommend wild game.
Not even to be pragmatic and help reduce animal deaths?
> Extinction is permanent.
Extinction is unlikely given the reproduction rates of species like deer.
>>>The intentional death is both more in-your-face
>>
>>In your face as opposed to burying your head about CDs?
>
> First of all, I don't believe there's as many deaths from
> slow moving farm machinery as you trolls would have
> me think. Secondly, any such deaths are accidental
> and not as abhorrent as an intentional death.
So you'd prefer animals be sliced and diced accidentally as opposed to
being humanely killed on purpose?
> Did you know that a high number of serial killers start out by
> killing animals intentionally?
Especially the homosexual ones like Dahmer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer
http://www.academiclibrary.com/view/...ery_Dahmer.htm
> I'm not saying you're a serial killer,
You're more likely to be one. Homosexuality is a far more common trait
among serial killers, even among the ones who start by killing small
animals.
> but it says something of the mindset.
No, it doesn't.
>>>and the health risks are unacceptable
>>
>>There are no adverse health risks. If anything, it's better for you
>>because you're not consuming a marginal diet that has only qualified
>>support from the major dietetic organizations.
>
> The vegan diet is not marginal.
Yes, it is.
> There is quite a lot
> of variety in the foods.
Not enough, which is why dietetic organizations only offer qualified
support for such diets.
> Go check out my recipe
> directory if you don't believe it.
I already have. It demonstrates that veganism isn't inherently
health-oriented.
>>>>>I'm doing the best I can for both my health
>>>>
>>>>Bullshit. First, you willfully inhale toxins to get a buzz off
>>>>marijuana -- not good for your health, especially for your lungs.
>>>>Smokers have a far greater incidence of cancer of the lungs, larynx, pharynx,
>>>>esophagus, mouth, colon and breast than non-smokers. Marijuana
>>>>contains more tar than cigarettes. Marijuana is also inhaled very
>>>>deeply and the smoke is held in the lungs for a long time. Marijuana is smoked
>>>>all the way to the end where tar content is the highest. Many of the
>>>>cancer-causing substances in tobacco are also found in marijuana. It
>>>>also affects your central nervous system in an adverse manner. There
>>>>are few if any positive effects of marijuana use.
>>>
>>>Ew, there's that evil, evil weed again. Reefer Madness
>>>anyone? 
>>
>>Your childish sarcasm does nothing to address the fact that you
>>willfully and frequently consume something which is bad for you on
>>many levels despite your claims to be interested in good health. You're a
>>charlatan.
>
> No charlatan.
You're a charlatan.
> I truly believe that it is good for me on a number of
> levels.
Because you're gullible and take the word of activists as gospel.
> I don't believe your 'facts' about its dangers. Most of what
> you claim, I've seen later disproven.
Not disproven -- you've only seen activists try to explain it away. Too
bad their agendas always get in the way of the facts.
>>>Get it right. I mentioned that hempseed oil contains omegas 3, 6 and
>>>9.
>
>>You said it was a good thing. You had no ****ing clue what you were
>>saying, you just wanted to repeat something you read on a pro-pot
>>website because you thought it was valid.
>
> It is a good thing.
Only in a healthful ratio with omega-3.
> The body needs all 3 and this oil
> provides it.
No, it doesn't. Your diet is already sufficient in omega-6 FAs from all
the vegetable oils you consume. You don't need MORE of it. You need MORE
omega-3 FAs.
> It's you trolls who started worrying that
> it might cause an overdose of omega 6,
Not overdose on it, just have it in an unhealthy ratio with omega-3,
which you DON'T get enough of.
> without
> even knowing how much is in there and how much
> the person is getting elsewhere in their diet.
I've read through your own recipes. You're not deficient in omega-6 with
all the margarine (not a good idea if you're concerned about good
health!) and other vegetable oils.
>>>You trolls jumped on and exaggerated my including of 6 in there.
>>
>>No, I demonstrated that you're a mindless **** who mindlessly repeats
>>bullshit found on activist websites as though she the disinformation
>>she's peddling is the fruit of her "research."
>
> That's funny, I've been to very few 'activist' websites. I do
> however go to and subscribe to, many science news sites.
Hahahaha! You're lying. You've yet to cite any science news here, just
points activists repeat ad nauseum.
>>>If every meateater switched to your 'better' meats, and did not
>>>reduce their consumption, then the above game would go extinct
>>
>>Bullshit. I've asked you to prove this claim, and I've also shared
>>with you population numbers between people and deer in Texas alone. Deer
>>are NOT an endangered species. Eating more of them would benefit deer in
>>the aggregate because of their overpopulation in most regions of the US
>>(and probably Canada, too).
>
> By admitting that hunting the deer would reverse their
> overpopulation,
Not reverse it, get it under control.
> you admit that hunting them keeps
> lowering their amounts. After they are no longer
> overpopulated, when you keep hunting (the demand
> for meat doesn't go away you know) their numbers
> keep going down until they are extinct.
Bullshit. If that were the case, they'd already be extinct. So would
other wildlife populations like ducks which have rebounded because of
sound wildlife management principles.
>>>and the 'grassfed' herds would barely supply anyone else.
>>
>>Nonsense.
>
> If it could supply everyone, then the grasslands would have
> to support dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds
> of times the number of cows.
Not that many times more.
>>>Face
>>>it, the commercial meat industry supplies most meat eaters,
>>
>>Consumers drive demand, commercial supply doesn't drive demand.
>
> That's right, and your game and grass fed can't feed that demand.
Yes, they can.
>>>and as far as the cds you're fond of mentioning, the amount is many,
>>>many timesfold.
>>
>>That's not an issue except for the fact that you keep wanting to
>>compare apples to oranges.
>
> Cds are the issue. It's the thing that you trolls keep bringing up.
No, you want to compare apples to oranges. You ignore widely-available
alternatives like grass-fed beef, bison, wild game, etc., and then prate
about the virtues of "veganic" farming -- which is the product of some
severely malnourished daydreaming.
>>>What's your point? That vegans should balance their meals?
>>
>>Definitely. It takes more planning on a vegetarian diet.
>
> Only at first when one is unfamiliar with some of the foods.
Not at all.
> After that it's as easy as one's previous meat diet.
How much iron are you getting now? Zinc? B12?
>>>>Ipse dixit, and what a pathetic little shit you are for bitching
>>>>about one kind of local production and then participating in it on a more
>>>>global scale.
>>>
>>>Ooo, a little mad are you?
>>
>>Not mad at all. Just pointing out your rank hypocrisy.
>
> If you feel so strongly against the import and export
> of foods, you must eat very bland meals.
Do you consider jalapeņos bland? Serranos? Poblanos?
> I think
> that the import and export increases the variety
> of foods availlable and is thus potentially more
> healthful.
You know nothing of health or nutrition, and your consumption of
imported foods shows your concern about animals is nothing but bullshit.
>>>Stop telling vegans what they should be doing.
>>
>>As long as you make categorical claims about things being right or
>>wrong, or nutritious or not, I will be here to correct you. Don't be
>>such a ****ing ingrate that I'm willing to volunteer such assistance.
>
> You're here to troll.
Nope.
> Not to offer assistance.
Yes, I am.
> Assistance isn't 'offered' with insults and swearing at people.
It is here.
>>>You're no expert.
>>
>>I know a lot more than you about nutritional science, health, and
>>wellness than you ever will. I also know a lot more than you about
>>veganism and why it's a worse solution than the problems it seeks to
>>correct.
>
> Surely you must know that you're joking.
I'm very serious. You're a twit when it comes to nutrition.
> I know what my years of research is,
Years? Zero.
> and where it's led me.
I know where it's led you: to the point of not being able to distinguish
between good and bad fats, whether of animal or plant origin; to the
point of making badly-formed generalizations that ALL meat is bad and
ALL food from plants is good; and to the point of not knowing the
difference between omega fatty acids and the importance of keeping them
in a proper balance.
> You know less than nothing about my research.
I know plenty -- see above. You don't make informed statements when it
comes to nutrition, because you're woefully uninformed.
> Why would
> you think that I would go to an insulting, lying troll and
> ask for advise? And take that advise over my years
> of research?
*Advice*. Advise is a verb. You don't have yeas of "research." If
anything, you've fallen for every pseudoscientific strand of activism
you happened across and considered yourself enlightened. When you put
your silly "findings" before an impartial and objective group, such as
you've done here, your world just comes crashing down.
> I don't think so.
Keep burying your head in the sand, Skunky. Too bad you didn't start by
burying your cankles.
>>>You're not even vegan,
>>
>>Hurray! You finally admit it.
>
> Then why are you still here in alt.food.vegan?
I'm here to help you get out while you can.
> Do you now admit to trolling?
I'm not a troll under any objective definition.